MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113980226 · doi:10.3109/10929080701517459

A comparison of registration techniques for computer- and image-assisted elbow surgery

2007· article· en· W2113980226 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Aided Surgery · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySt Joseph's Health CareRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElbowComputer scienceComputer visionOrientation (vector space)Image registrationArtificial intelligenceElbow flexionPosition (finance)MedicineMathematicsSurgeryImage (mathematics)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal function following elbow replacement surgery is dependent on the accurate replication of the elbow's flexion-extension axis. Currently, position and orientation of the axis are estimated from visual landmarks. In order to develop computer-assisted techniques to more accurately define this axis, a surface-based registration technique employing a hand-held laser scanner was evaluated against a conventional paired-point registration method to determine whether it produced improved alignment of the flexion-extension axis of the elbow. Registration error was 0.8 +/- 0.3 mm for surface-based registration, compared with 1.9 +/- 1.0 mm for the conventional registration method. These results suggest that the implementation of a surface-based registration technique may lead to a more accurate axis determination and improved clinical outcomes following elbow replacement surgery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it